Relationship of Organization Socialization with Organizational ...
Relationship of Organization Socialization with Organizational ...
Relationship of Organization Socialization with Organizational ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
ijcrb.webs.com<br />
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS<br />
DECEMBER 2011<br />
VOL 3, NO 8<br />
<strong>Relationship</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Organization</strong> <strong>Socialization</strong> <strong>with</strong> <strong>Organization</strong>al<br />
Commitment and Turnover Intention: Moderating role <strong>of</strong> Perceived<br />
<strong>Organization</strong>al Support<br />
Abstract<br />
Mariam Manzoor<br />
Dr Hummayoun Naeem<br />
Foundation University Institute <strong>of</strong> Management Sciences Islamabad, Pakistan<br />
The present study aims to investigate impact <strong>of</strong> organizational socialization on organizational<br />
commitment and turnover intention <strong>with</strong> moderating role <strong>of</strong> perceived organizational support.<br />
A field survey approach was used by selecting 310 employees from telecom sector. Pakistan.<br />
Questionnaire was used as data instrument. The results confirm that organizational<br />
socialization enhances organizational commitment <strong>of</strong> employees, thus reducing cost <strong>of</strong> losing<br />
employees. Therefore, socialization program must be designed so which fulfills the<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> employees.<br />
Key Words: <strong>Organization</strong>al <strong>Socialization</strong>, <strong>Organization</strong>al Commitment, Turnover Intention,<br />
Perceived <strong>Organization</strong>al Support.<br />
Introduction<br />
Employees’ retention is one <strong>of</strong> the main concerns in the work settings and researchers have<br />
paid great attention to resolve this problem by exploring different factors on employees’<br />
turnover intention as well as their commitment to organization. For example, among these<br />
researchers the<br />
Wanous (1980) investigated organizational entry process, steers (1977) investigated<br />
organizational commitment process, Mowdaye et al. (1982) explored <strong>with</strong>drawal process etc.<br />
The stream <strong>of</strong> this research points out the direction <strong>of</strong> these relationships is such that<br />
organizational entry leads to socialization leads to commitment or turnover intention. The<br />
alignment <strong>of</strong> employees’ skills and interest <strong>with</strong> work setting in organization is <strong>of</strong> particular<br />
interest for researchers. Feldman (1981) argued that in process <strong>of</strong> socialization the employees<br />
settle and defines his position and relationships <strong>with</strong> others. This results in increased<br />
commitment to the organization (Mowday et al., 1982). In previous studies commitment is<br />
COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute <strong>of</strong> Interdisciplinary Business Research<br />
515
ijcrb.webs.com<br />
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS<br />
DECEMBER 2011<br />
VOL 3, NO 8<br />
being tried to be understood through alternative dimensions and its role in both theory and<br />
practice. Although, numerous researchers have tried to provide rich insight to commitment<br />
and turnover literature however, there is still a need to explore more determinants <strong>of</strong><br />
commitment as well as turnover intention (Cohen, 2003). One <strong>of</strong> such determinants is<br />
organizational socialization which is mostly ignored in context <strong>of</strong> commitment and turnover.<br />
Along <strong>with</strong> it research focused all <strong>of</strong> these constructs isolate and didn’t take all <strong>of</strong> them in<br />
one context. This lack <strong>of</strong> studies about commitment and turnover along <strong>with</strong> socialization is<br />
one <strong>of</strong> the major gaps in literature.<br />
As socialization is the process which can influence commitment levels <strong>of</strong> employees<br />
(Saks et al., 2007), therefore, it is reasonable to explore the relationship between<br />
socialization, commitments and turnover intention. Therefore, present study has taken an<br />
attempt to address this issue by fulfilling literature gap. It aims to investigate impact <strong>of</strong><br />
organizational socialization on organizational commitment and turnover intention <strong>with</strong><br />
moderating role <strong>of</strong> perceived organizational support. The objectives <strong>of</strong> the study are<br />
• To find out the relationship between employees socialization, commitment and turn<br />
over.<br />
• To find the interactional effect <strong>of</strong> perceived organizational support upon this<br />
relationship.<br />
The study will provide more general aspect <strong>of</strong> socialization and it will <strong>of</strong>fer useful<br />
implications for organizations, mangers, human resource management staff and academia.<br />
Literature Review<br />
<strong>Socialization</strong> can be defined as “socialization is the activity that confronts and lends structure<br />
to the entry <strong>of</strong> non-members into an already existing world or a sector <strong>of</strong> that world”<br />
(Wentworth, 1980). It exerts a surprising impact on employees’ performance and<br />
organizational stability. This process <strong>of</strong> organizational socialization is a performance<br />
COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute <strong>of</strong> Interdisciplinary Business Research<br />
516
ijcrb.webs.com<br />
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS<br />
DECEMBER 2011<br />
VOL 3, NO 8<br />
management concern, and several researches have confirmed its strong association <strong>with</strong><br />
organizational commitment and job satisfaction which are related <strong>with</strong> turnover intention<br />
(Fisher, 1986). <strong>Socialization</strong> resources theory argued that organizations should<br />
Design effective orientation training programs that guide new employees about each<br />
aspect <strong>of</strong> stressful situations <strong>of</strong> organization as well as strategies to cope <strong>with</strong> them. Ashforth,<br />
et al. (2007), pointed out that socialization is significant because it presents new employees<br />
about realistic scenario <strong>of</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> organization as well all <strong>of</strong> its potential for new<br />
employees. The primary purpose <strong>of</strong> socialization is to provide employees <strong>with</strong> accurate<br />
information in the form <strong>of</strong> a realistic job preview before entering organizational.<br />
Effective socialization can have long lasting productive effects on employees by<br />
increasing person-organization fit and person-job fit as well as organizational commitment.<br />
<strong>Socialization</strong> can <strong>of</strong>fer its benefits by reducing uncertainty. Uncertainty reduction theory<br />
states that, “newcomers desire to increase the predictability <strong>of</strong> interactions between<br />
themselves and others <strong>with</strong>in the new organization” (Bauer et al., 2007, p. 708). Uncertainty<br />
reduction theory is the foundation for research on newcomer employees information seeking<br />
and proactivity (Miller & Jablin, 1991).<br />
<strong>Organization</strong>al Commitment<br />
Previous studies have shown that newcomers employees who are more socialized have high<br />
level <strong>of</strong> commitment than their less-socialized colleagues. As socialization provides<br />
employees <strong>with</strong> clear set information, which in turns helps them to cope <strong>with</strong> stress and<br />
others matters <strong>of</strong> job, thus, increasing their affection <strong>with</strong> the organization (Allen and Meyer,<br />
1990). There is a research view which argues that different organizational socialization<br />
techniques have different effects on various forms <strong>of</strong> commitment (Cohen, 2003). In fact<br />
organizational socialization is the way to assist employees in keeping fit for effective work<br />
(Mowday et al., 1982) thus significantly effecting their level <strong>of</strong> commitment. Buchanan<br />
COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute <strong>of</strong> Interdisciplinary Business Research<br />
517
ijcrb.webs.com<br />
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS<br />
DECEMBER 2011<br />
VOL 3, NO 8<br />
(1974) also noted that new employees are basically worried about getting established and<br />
accepted by the organization. In this way they make deliberate efforts to prove themselves by<br />
showing that they have the ability to adjust to the demands <strong>of</strong> the new environment. Thus it is<br />
hypothesized that<br />
H1. <strong>Organization</strong> socialization has positive relationship <strong>with</strong> organizational commitment.<br />
Turn over Intention<br />
<strong>Organization</strong>al turnover has shown highest rates among new employees (Griffeth & Hom,<br />
2001). One <strong>of</strong> the major factors effecting turnover intention <strong>of</strong> new employees is poor<br />
socialization (Fisher, 1986). A large body <strong>of</strong> research shows that socialization strategies are<br />
related to turnover and it effects turnover in three ways: by influencing job satisfaction,<br />
organizational commitment, and met expectations (e.g., Cable&Judge, 1996; Saks&Ashforth,<br />
1997); by influencing perceptions <strong>of</strong> person-organization (P-O) fit and values congruence<br />
(e.g., Cable & Parsons, 2001; Cooper-Thomas et al, 2004) and by influencing newcomers’<br />
adjustment to their new jobs and environments (Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2002;<br />
Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003). When new employees enter organizations, the<br />
disconfirmation <strong>of</strong> their unrealistic expectations results in their dissatisfaction <strong>with</strong> job and<br />
thus increase chances <strong>of</strong> turnover (Wanous, et al. 1992). However, successful socialization<br />
designed by organization may result in successful adjustment in form <strong>of</strong> organizational<br />
commitment, job satisfaction, social integration, role clarity, and fit and low turnover<br />
intention (e.g., Bauer & Green, 1998; Wanberg &Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Thus, it is<br />
hypothesized that<br />
H2. <strong>Organization</strong> socialization has negative relationship <strong>with</strong> turnover intention.<br />
COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute <strong>of</strong> Interdisciplinary Business Research<br />
518
ijcrb.webs.com<br />
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS<br />
DECEMBER 2011<br />
VOL 3, NO 8<br />
Perceived <strong>Organization</strong>al Support:<br />
Perceived organizational support is employees’ “perception <strong>of</strong> being valued and cared about<br />
by the organization” (Eisenberger, et al. 1990). Employees’ perceived organizational support<br />
makes employees feel obliged to be committed to the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1990).<br />
They also found positive relationships between perceived organizational support and<br />
performance. Waung (1995) confirmed that the new employees’ positive perception about<br />
organizational support results in high organization commitment, which in turn produces<br />
lower intention to quit.<br />
According to Tourangeau and Cranley (2006), perceived support is an important factor that<br />
indirectly affects the intention to remain employed. Waung (1995) also found, perceived<br />
organizational support as a mediator <strong>of</strong> the effect <strong>of</strong> a coping orientation on organizational<br />
commitment and intent to quit. Thus it is hypothesized that<br />
H3. <strong>Relationship</strong> between <strong>Organization</strong> <strong>Socialization</strong> and <strong>Organization</strong> commitment is<br />
moderated by perceived organization support.<br />
H4. <strong>Relationship</strong> between <strong>Organization</strong> <strong>Socialization</strong> and Turnover intention is moderated<br />
by perceived organization support.<br />
COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute <strong>of</strong> Interdisciplinary Business Research<br />
519
ijcrb.webs.com<br />
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS<br />
DECEMBER 2011<br />
VOL 3, NO 8<br />
<strong>Organization</strong>al<br />
commitment.<br />
<strong>Organization</strong> socialization<br />
Turnover Intention.<br />
Perceived <strong>Organization</strong><br />
Support<br />
(Moderating Variable)<br />
Fig 1: Proposed Research Model<br />
Method<br />
Data Collection and Sample: The data collection was done through onsite administration <strong>of</strong> a<br />
survey to employees who were working in telecom sector <strong>of</strong> Pakistan. The participants were<br />
randomly sampled across departments and ranks. The reason <strong>of</strong> simple random sampling<br />
technique for data collection was that it was difficult to select the data from only a one<br />
specified sector; people are no more research oriented. Thus, the design <strong>of</strong> study is cross<br />
sectional.<br />
These individuals were sent covering letters in which it was mentioned the<br />
purpose and scope <strong>of</strong> the study and it was assured that their responses would be retained<br />
completely confidential. Total 400 questionnaires were distributed. Out <strong>of</strong> 400, only 300<br />
usable responses were received. Thus, total response rate was 75%.<br />
Measures: In Pakistan, English is the <strong>of</strong>ficial language <strong>of</strong> correspondence in all <strong>of</strong>fices as<br />
well as medium <strong>of</strong> instruction in educational institutions. Therefore, in the questionnaires all<br />
the questions were written in English language. Usually, researchers used questionnaires in<br />
English in Pakistan (Raja and Johns, 2010).Self-report questionnaires were used for all the<br />
COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute <strong>of</strong> Interdisciplinary Business Research<br />
520
ijcrb.webs.com<br />
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS<br />
DECEMBER 2011<br />
VOL 3, NO 8<br />
measures. All variables were rated on 5 point likert scale ranging from 1 depicted “strongly<br />
disagree”, 5 “strongly agree”.<br />
Results<br />
The demographic pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> 300 respondents in table 1 shows that majority (79%)<br />
respondents were males, while 21% were females. The statistics <strong>of</strong> experience years <strong>of</strong><br />
employees show that 40% respondents had 1-6 years experience, while 33% and 27% were<br />
having less than 1 and more than 6 years <strong>of</strong> experience respectively. The maximum age <strong>of</strong><br />
respondents was above 30 years, 25.3% were <strong>of</strong> age range 25-30 years and only 19% were<br />
below 25 years. In table 1 demographic information <strong>of</strong> respondents is given<br />
Gender<br />
Job Duration<br />
Age<br />
Table 1: Characteristics <strong>of</strong> Sample<br />
Category Frequency Percentage<br />
Male 237 79<br />
Female 63 21<br />
Less than 1 year 99 33<br />
1-6 years 120 40<br />
More than 6 Years 81 27<br />
>25 years 58 19<br />
25-30 years 76 25.3<br />
ijcrb.webs.com<br />
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS<br />
DECEMBER 2011<br />
VOL 3, NO 8<br />
Reliability analysis <strong>of</strong> factors: Reliability analysis is the measure taken to ensure that the<br />
scale is consistently measuring the constructs used in questionnaire. It is used to measure the<br />
internal consistency <strong>of</strong> items. The most common measure <strong>of</strong> scale reliability is Cronbach’s<br />
alpha, which is used in this research. The value <strong>of</strong> Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient<br />
normally ranges between 0 and 1. The closer Cronbach’s alpha coefficient near to 1.0 shows<br />
the greater internal consistency <strong>of</strong> the items in the scale. The table 2 shows the constructs,<br />
number <strong>of</strong> their items and values <strong>of</strong> reliability analysis. The values in table indicate that all <strong>of</strong><br />
the factors have the individual value <strong>of</strong> Cronbach alpha above 0.7, which is deemed<br />
significant. The highest value <strong>of</strong> alpha was <strong>of</strong> the factor Turn over Intention i.e., 0.90 and the<br />
lowest value was <strong>of</strong> the factor <strong>Organization</strong>al <strong>Socialization</strong>, which was 0.74.<br />
Table 2: Reliability <strong>of</strong> construct measures<br />
Construct Number <strong>of</strong> Items Composite Reliability<br />
<strong>Organization</strong>al <strong>Socialization</strong> 20 0.74<br />
<strong>Organization</strong>al Support 24 0.89<br />
<strong>Organization</strong>al Commitment 3 0.92<br />
Turn over Intention 3 0.90<br />
In order to evaluate the direct relationship between independent and dependent variable<br />
simple regression analysis was carried out. The output values are given in table 3. The values<br />
<strong>of</strong> beta <strong>of</strong> theoretical relationship <strong>of</strong> socialization and commitment is positive (0.78**) which<br />
shows that a change <strong>of</strong> one standard deviation in the socialization will result in a change <strong>of</strong><br />
0.78 standard deviations in the commitment. Thus H1 is supported. On contrary the beta<br />
values <strong>of</strong> variable socialization and turnover intention is negative (_0.30*), showing one<br />
standard deviation increase in socialization will cause _0.30* standard deviation decrease in<br />
COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute <strong>of</strong> Interdisciplinary Business Research<br />
522
ijcrb.webs.com<br />
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS<br />
DECEMBER 2011<br />
VOL 3, NO 8<br />
turnover intention. Thus H2 is supported. The significant values <strong>of</strong> F and R 2 show that<br />
<strong>Organization</strong>al <strong>Socialization</strong>, <strong>Organization</strong>al Commitment and Turn over Intention do a good<br />
job explaining the relationships. All the values confirm the significant good fit <strong>of</strong> model.<br />
Table 3: Regression Analysis<br />
Independent<br />
Variable<br />
<strong>Socialization</strong><br />
Dependent<br />
variables<br />
Beta R 2 F sig<br />
Commitment 0.78** 0.32** 250.15 0.000<br />
Turnover intention _0.30* 0.47* 315.50 0.001<br />
Moderating effect <strong>of</strong> Perceived organizational Support<br />
In order to test the hypotheses regarding the moderating effect <strong>of</strong> perceived organizational<br />
support on the relationships between organizational socialization and the dimensions <strong>of</strong><br />
organizational commitment and turnover intention, a two-step hierarchical multiple<br />
regression was used. In the first step, the dependent variable is regressed on both the<br />
independent and moderating variables. In the second step, an interaction term, created by the<br />
multiplication <strong>of</strong> the scores obtained from the two variables entered in the first step, is added<br />
to the regression model. The moderating effect is supported when the regression coefficient<br />
associated <strong>with</strong> the interaction term is significant (p
ijcrb.webs.com<br />
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS<br />
DECEMBER 2011<br />
VOL 3, NO 8<br />
Table 4: Moderating effect <strong>of</strong> Perceived organizational Support<br />
Model B SE B β ∆ R 2<br />
Dependent variable: affective<br />
commitment<br />
Step 1<br />
O-<strong>Socialization</strong> 0.42 0.03 0.51<br />
POS -0.12 0.06 _0.23<br />
Step 2<br />
OS X POS 0.17 0.03 0.15* 0.24**<br />
Dependent variable Turnover intention<br />
Step 1<br />
O-<strong>Socialization</strong> _0.04 0.05 -0.02<br />
POS 0.30 0.12 0.34**<br />
Step 2<br />
OS X POS -0.05 0.03 -0.15** 0.45**<br />
Note: β Standardized regression coefficient; * p
ijcrb.webs.com<br />
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS<br />
DECEMBER 2011<br />
VOL 3, NO 8<br />
organizational commitment <strong>of</strong> employees, thus reducing cost <strong>of</strong> losing employees. The effect<br />
<strong>of</strong> organizational socialization on commitment is mediated by perceived organizational<br />
support. It means that if employees perceived organizational support it will increase their<br />
commitment. Therefore, socialization program must be designed so which fulfills the<br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> employees. Thus, employees’ commitment, low turnover and positive<br />
organizational support can have great optimistic effect on organizational productivity. It<br />
canbe concluded that organizational socialization, low turnover intentions, employees<br />
commitment through perceived organizational support provides enough potential <strong>of</strong><br />
organizational productivity. Therefore, it is recommended to provide adequate support<br />
through HRM practices, and create supportive environment for making employees happy and<br />
better.<br />
COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute <strong>of</strong> Interdisciplinary Business Research<br />
525
ijcrb.webs.com<br />
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS<br />
DECEMBER 2011<br />
VOL 3, NO 8<br />
References<br />
Allen, N.J. and J.P. Meyer. (1990). <strong>Organization</strong>al <strong>Socialization</strong> Tactics: A Longitudinal<br />
Analysis <strong>of</strong> Links to Newcomers' Commitment and Role Orientation. Academy <strong>of</strong><br />
Management Journal, 33, 857-858<br />
Ashforth, D.M; Sluss and S.H. Harrison. (2007). <strong>Socialization</strong> in organizational contexts.<br />
International Review <strong>of</strong> Industrial and <strong>Organization</strong>al Psychology, 22 . pp. 1–70.<br />
Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. (1998). <strong>Organization</strong>al socialization: A<br />
review and directions for future research. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research<br />
in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 16, pp. 149-214). Greenwich, CT:<br />
JAI Press<br />
Bauer,T. N.,&Green, S. G. (1998).Testing the combined effects <strong>of</strong> new comer information<br />
seeking and manager behavior on socialization. Journal <strong>of</strong> Applied Psychology, 83:<br />
72- 83.<br />
Buchanan, B. (1974). Building <strong>Organization</strong>al Commitment: The <strong>Socialization</strong> <strong>of</strong> Managers<br />
in Work <strong>Organization</strong>s. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.<br />
Cable, D. M.,&Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and<br />
organizational entry. <strong>Organization</strong>al Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67:<br />
294- 311<br />
Cable, D. M.,&Parsons, C. K. (2001). <strong>Socialization</strong> tactics and person-organization fit.<br />
Personnel Psychology, 54: 1- 23.<br />
Cohen, A. (2003), Multiple Commitments in the Workplace: an Integrative Approach,<br />
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.<br />
Cooper-Thomas, H. D., van Vianen, A., & Anderson, N. (2004). Changes in personorganization<br />
fit: The impact <strong>of</strong> socialization tactics on perceived and actual P-O fit.<br />
European Journal <strong>of</strong> Work and <strong>Organization</strong>al Psychology, 13: 52-78<br />
Cooper-Thomas, H., & Anderson, N. (2002). Newcomer adjustment: The relationship<br />
between organizational social-ization tactics, information acquisitionand attitudes.<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Occupationaland <strong>Organization</strong>al Psychology, 75: 423-437.<br />
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P.,&Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support<br />
and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal <strong>of</strong> Applied Psychology, 75:<br />
51–59.<br />
Feldman, D. C. (1981).The multiple socialization <strong>of</strong> organization members. Academy <strong>of</strong><br />
Management Review, 6, 309-318.<br />
COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute <strong>of</strong> Interdisciplinary Business Research<br />
526
ijcrb.webs.com<br />
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS<br />
DECEMBER 2011<br />
VOL 3, NO 8<br />
Fisher, C. D. (1986). <strong>Organization</strong>al socialization: An integrative review. In G. R. Ferris & K.<br />
M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management, Vol. 4:<br />
101- 145. Greenwich, CT: JAI.<br />
Griffeth, R.W., & Hom, P.W.( 2001). Retaining valued employees. Thousand Oaks, CA:<br />
Sage.<br />
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D.,&Wanberg, C. R. (2003). Unwrapping the organizational entry<br />
process: Disentangling multiple antecedents and their pathways to adjustment.<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Applied Psychology, 88: 779-794.<br />
Miller, V. D., & Jabli, F. M. (1991). Information seehng during organizational entry:<br />
Influences, tactics, and a model <strong>of</strong> the process. Academy <strong>of</strong>Management Review, 16, 92-<br />
120.<br />
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M (1982). <strong>Organization</strong> linkages. New York:<br />
Academic Press,<br />
Saks, A. M.,&Ashforth, B. E. (1997). <strong>Organization</strong>al socialization: Making sense <strong>of</strong> the past<br />
and present as a prologue for the future. Journal <strong>of</strong> Vocational Behavior, 51: 234-279.<br />
Saks, A.M., Uggerslev, K.L. and Fassina, N.E. (2007). <strong>Socialization</strong> tactics and newcomer<br />
adjustment: a meta-analytic review and test <strong>of</strong> a model. Journal <strong>of</strong> Vocational<br />
Behavior, Vol. 70, pp. 413-46.<br />
Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes <strong>of</strong> organizational commitment.<br />
Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 46-56.<br />
Tourangeau AE, Cranley LA.(2006) Nursing intention to remain employed: understanding<br />
and strengthening determinants. J. Adv. Nurs. 55: 497–509.<br />
Wanberg, C. R.,&Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and outcomes <strong>of</strong> proactivity in<br />
the socialization process. Journal <strong>of</strong> Applied Psychology, 85: 373-385.<br />
Wanous, J. P. (1980). <strong>Organization</strong>al entry: Recruitment, selection, and socialization <strong>of</strong><br />
newcomers. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley,<br />
Wanous, J. P., Poland, T. D., Premack, S. L., & Davis, K. S. (1992). The effects <strong>of</strong> met<br />
expectations on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: A review and meta-analysis.<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Applied Psychology, 77, 288-297.<br />
Waung, M. (1995). The effects <strong>of</strong> self-regulatory coping orientation on newcomer adjustment<br />
and job survival. Personnel Psychology, 48, 633-650.<br />
Wentworth, W.M. (1980). Context and Understanding: An Inquiry into <strong>Socialization</strong> Theory,<br />
Elsevier.<br />
COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute <strong>of</strong> Interdisciplinary Business Research<br />
527
ijcrb.webs.com<br />
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS<br />
DECEMBER 2011<br />
VOL 3, NO 8<br />
Annexure<br />
The <strong>Organization</strong>al <strong>Socialization</strong> Inventory (OSI). (Taormina, R.J, 1994)<br />
Key for rating the questionnaire:<br />
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree.<br />
<strong>Organization</strong>al Commitment Scale, (Allen and Mayer, 1990).<br />
Affective Commitment Scale items<br />
1. I would be very happy to spend the rest <strong>of</strong> my career <strong>with</strong> this organization<br />
2. I enjoy discussing my organization <strong>with</strong> people outside it<br />
3. I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own<br />
4. I think that I could easily become as attached to another organization as I am to this one<br />
(R)<br />
5. I do not feel like 'part <strong>of</strong> the family' at my organization (R)<br />
6. I do not feel 'emotionally attached' to this organization (R)<br />
7. This organization has a great deal <strong>of</strong> personal meaning for me<br />
8. I do not feel a strong sense <strong>of</strong> belonging to my <strong>Organization</strong> (R)<br />
Continuance Commitment Scale items<br />
1. I am not afraid <strong>of</strong> what might happen if I quit my job <strong>with</strong>out having another one lined up<br />
(R)<br />
2. It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to<br />
3. Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization<br />
now<br />
4. It wouldn't be too costly for me to leave my organization now (R)<br />
5. Right now, staying <strong>with</strong> my organization is a matter <strong>of</strong> necessity as much as desire.<br />
6. I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization.<br />
7. One <strong>of</strong> the few serious consequences <strong>of</strong> leaving this organization would be the scarcity <strong>of</strong><br />
available alternatives.<br />
8. One <strong>of</strong> the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that leaving would<br />
require considerable personal sacrifice — another organization may not match the overall<br />
benefits I have here<br />
Normative Commitment Scale items<br />
1. I think that people these days move from company to company too <strong>of</strong>ten.<br />
2. I do not believe that a person must always be loyal to his or her organization (R)<br />
3. Jumping from organization to organization does not seem at all unethical to me (R)<br />
4. One <strong>of</strong> the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that I believe that<br />
loyalty is important and therefore feel a sense <strong>of</strong> moral obligation to remain<br />
5. If l got another <strong>of</strong>fer for a better job elsewhere I would not feel it was right to leave my<br />
organization<br />
6. I was taught to believe in the value <strong>of</strong> remaining loyal to one organization<br />
7. Things were better in the days when people stayed <strong>with</strong> one organization for most <strong>of</strong> their<br />
careers<br />
8. I do not think that wanting to be a 'company man' or 'company woman' is sensible anymore<br />
(R)<br />
COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute <strong>of</strong> Interdisciplinary Business Research<br />
528
ijcrb.webs.com<br />
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS<br />
DECEMBER 2011<br />
VOL 3, NO 8<br />
Perceived <strong>Organization</strong>al Support Items (Eisenberger et al, 1986)<br />
1. This organization is willing to help me when I need a special favor<br />
2. The organization values my contribution to its well-being<br />
3. The organization cares about my opinions<br />
Turnover Intention (Cummann et al, 1979).<br />
1. I probably look for a new job in the next year.<br />
2. I will likely actively look for a new job in the next year.<br />
3. I <strong>of</strong>ten think about quitting<br />
COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute <strong>of</strong> Interdisciplinary Business Research<br />
529